Often times we look at our world and see the big picture problems created by those who think they know more than the rest of us. These Yogi’s who believe they are “smarter than the average bear” think this justifies giving them taking control of the way we live our lives. They are convinced that if only we would listen to their wisdom, they could create their own version of heaven on earth. Unfortunately, what they give us turns out to be reminiscent of a place that is so much hotter.

C.S. Lewis wrote, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” He understood that dictatorial decrees were not just wrong on a theoretical level, but wrong because they caused real pain to real live people.

One such person suffering at the cooperating hands of the state and medical community is a teenage girl named Justina Pelletier. Her story is beginning to make the rounds of some of the more reputable news sources. Without going into all the gory details, Justina was diagnosed and treated for mitochondrial disease, and for the past several years was living a relatively normal life. Then she had the misfortune of being admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital for a bout with the flu.

Louisville, KY—Yesterday activist federal district Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky must recognize the “marriages” of four couples who were “married” in other states and Canada, and, in so doing, struck down part of Kentucky’s marriage law, including its constitutional marriage amendment passed by 74 percent of the voters in 2004. The marriage amendment stated: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Recommended by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and nominated by George H.W. Bush, Judge Heyburn became a federal judge in 1992. Relying on Justice Kennedy’s 2013 majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage for federal purposes, Judge Heyburn said he “cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the [marriage] laws challenged here.” He discounted procreation or “responsible procreation” and child rearing as legitimate reasons for the marriage laws. He spoke of the law “evolving” and cited a dissent from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (who once wrote “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” as justification for the state forcibly sterilizing people), that “judges do and must legislate…” Judge Heyburn acknowledged that when courts go against something as fundamental as “traditional marriage,” “they risk some of the public’s acceptance.” He then tried to answer his own question: “How can a single judge interfere with that right?” In his failed attempt to address these issues, Judge Heyburn downplayed religious concerns and beliefs, saying again the law has “evolved” and pointing to three decisions from Justice Kennedy (Romer v. Evans, striking down Colorado’s law on homosexuality; Lawrence v. Texas, striking down Texas’s sodomy law; and Windsor, striking down part of the federal DOMA).

I realize it is hard for some people to understand (especially those holding political office), but in the United States, “We the People” are the sovereigns. America has no king. In America, “We the People” are Caesar. Someone rightly said, “In America, the people rule; they have the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Amen. And in this land of liberty, nothing is more important than the jury box. The right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers is a benchmark principle of a free land.

Juries have immeasurable power. Not only do they have power over the fate of the accused, they have power over the accusers. No one has more authority than a jury–not even the judge. And without hyperbole I can say that a constitutionally literate, fully informed jury is pretty much all that stands between the ballot box and the cartridge box.

In a letter to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” And two years before the first musket shot was fired that started America’s War for Independence, a Boston lawyer by the name of John Adams said, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

There has been a lot of discussion about the many injustices in both our laws and in the selective enforcement of them. Rather than regurgitate and summarize current thinking, it would be good to look back at the words of one who spent, and gave, his life fighting the injustices of his time.

On April 16, 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was sitting in a Birmingham, Alabama and he wrote a response to the criticism of those pastors he was attempting to help. They had been afflicted by the complacency and acceptance of the status quo. King seems like he felt he was trying to push a rope. It is understandable that those benefiting from the segregationist culture would resent the appearance of an “outsider” defending the rights of the oppressed, but it really bothered him that black pastors joined in the criticism.

The entire letter is too long to reproduce here, but I would suggest reading the entire correspondence as it has much to say that applies to our situation today. However, the good Reverend’s thought on injustice and unjust laws is particularly pointed in today’s world.

The segment below, as well as the balance of King’s letter needs to read in the context of another one of his thoughts that may help guide us through our troubled times: “If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Ghandi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer”

For those who have been living under a rock, Edward Snowden is the young man who leaked the word that the NSA was tracking billions of phone calls every day. His actions have generated controversy on both sides of the political aisle. It is rare these days for a dispute to break along anything but party lines… yet here we are.

To find Glenn Beck and Michael Moore on the same side of any issue is truly amazing. To have Democrats and Republicans siding with each other against other Democrats and Republicans just doesn’t happen every day. It may be that we are seeing true colors in some cases as public figures come down on the side of the individual freedom or government.

Before we get into the arguments for and against his actions, let’s consider for a moment what we learned by them. We learned was that the national government was keeping records of all our phone calls – not just through Verizon, but pretty much everyone. On top of that, we are told that our internet activity is being followed as well. Many will believe that this sort of snooping is just too massive a project to be undertaken. They have not seen descriptions of the new facility in Utah.

It’s a little less than a week before America decides on a new president. It is time to individually and corporately make it perfectly clear that We the People will not tolerate Democrats or the courts manipulating election results. The Republican leadership is too hung up on their positions and blinded by their faith in human nature that their “worthy opponents” either would not or could not override the will of the people and steal the election.

Stories abound of early voters seeing their choices changed to keep Barack Hussein Obama in office. Some don’t think this is possible. As an old computer geek, I can tell you, it is entirely within the capabilities of a skilled programmer… not only to change the vote, but to make the code extremely hard to trace if there is an investigation. Even progressives are not foolish enough to change every vote. It could be one in five, one in ten or whatever they believe would be sufficient to give them a winning margin. One solution is to drive the turnout to such a point where even this tactic will not carry the day.

There are also stories about cadres of lawyers prepared to intimidate voters at the polls and, even worse, to challenge any results they don’t like. This is the same tactic many corporations use when they have trouble with competition – they try to stifle them in court. This often works well for businesses with deep pockets. It works even better with progressives dealing with an overabundance of liberal judges handling their cases.

One of the last (and very best) true investigative journalists is William Norman Grigg. I have admired his work for years. A report he recently wrote was covered by one of the very best (if not THE BEST) newspapers in the country, The Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Journal. Grigg writes, “When New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146 into law on June 18, the Granite State became the first in the nation to enact a measure explicitly recognizing and protecting the indispensable right of jury nullification.

“New Hampshire’s jury nullification law reads, in relevant part: ‘In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.’

“There is nothing novel about the principle and practice of jury nullification, which dictates that citizen juries have the right and authority to rule both on the facts of a case, and the validity of a given law. This is widely recognized in judicial precedents in both American history and in Anglo-Saxon common law dating back to the Magna Carta (or earlier). At the time of the American founding it was well and widely understood that the power of citizen juries–both grand and petit–was plenary, and that their chief function was to force the government to prove its case against a defendant–and the validity of the law in question.”

Sometimes it is easy to allow our moods to be swayed by the things we see on the news. One day we greet the day with anticipation as we see polling data the shows the evil in the White House will soon be driven back to Chicago where it belongs, or that the courts have ruled on the side of common sense for a change. Another day we hear reports of shenanigans that are designed to thwart the desire of the American people to return to the values that made this country great… or the courts have, once again, decided that the people are merely subjects of the governing class.

These are just the daily ups and downs of life. When we step back and take a long term perspective we see that neither situation can last. Even Adolph Hitler who tore his country to shreds and Josef Stalin who murdered millions of his own people are gone. They both did an awful lot of damage while they walked the earth, which is why we must oppose the evil among us, but ultimately they found the truth of the Ecclesiastical comment, “all is vanity”.

David the Psalmist understood this when he was inspired to pen the 37th Psalm:

Proverbs 25:19 tells us, “Trusting an unreliable person in a difficult time is like a rotten tooth or a faltering foot.” This is what we have been doing when we have depended upon the Supreme Court to fix the problems created by the elected representatives and President. While it may have seemed like a reasonable hope at the time, it was, in retrospect, a misplaced hope.

A misplaced hope is what we usually have when we expect any government, especially our national government, to repair the damage they, themselves, have created. The thinking that burned us today is the same thinking many of us who claim to be advocates of smaller government indulge ourselves in when we believe that so many programs should be cut or eliminated, but we need to hang on to this or that benefit. We have started a pattern of taking from the governments coffers that the momentum makes it almost impossible to stop.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli lamented that the events in Washington made today, “a dark day for American liberty.” The Republican Governors Association agreed to take no action to implement ObamaKare until after November’s election. They are obviously hoping for a shift to a more honest, logical and able congress and executive at that time. It was unclear how far they would go with their disobedience and uncooperative activities should things really go bad and the vote be close enough for Democrat voter fraud to swing the number toward Barack Hussein Obama. We can hope and pray that they don’t lose their resolve – as it will be needed more than ever should this happen.

The American people are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of Affordable Care Act. This is just one more euphemism that the people in Washington hoped would fool the people into believe bad (the new health care plan) was good and good (the current plan – even though it could use some improvement) was bad. We are also awaiting word on the Eric Holder contempt vote.

While we await this news from inside the beltway, we need to consider how much trouble our country is in. The fate of the whole health care system lies in the hands of nine unelected men and women in black robes. At this point, we have no recourse if they don’t get it right. Examples abound where decisions have deviated from original intent of the Constitution, the will of the people, and even common sense. We need only look at Kelo v. City of New London, where the court decided the financial status of local governments was more important than the property rights of the citizens who paid the taxes.

So, whatever seems right, has no real relationship to what these nine life time appointees will do. Ever since the 1803 when the court took upon itself the practice of “judicial review” we have seen an increasing deference to the branch of our national government that was supposed to be the weakest… primarily administrative branch. The fact that we are depending on these nine people to make the best decision for the people – no matter what they decide – shows that things have gone way astray

[I received this from Congressman Randy Forbes (VA-4) and found it to be right on target. The article was originally published in The Daily Caller.]

President Ronald Reagan said, “I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.” Unfortunately, we now know what would have happened if Moses had run them by a federal judge in Virginia — they would have been whittled down to the “Six Commandments.”

At issue is a Giles County high school display of important historical documents, including the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in the display. Judge Michael Urbanski, a Virginia federal district court judge, suggested they may be permissibly displayed if edited to omit commandments that reference God.

They are called the “Ten Commandments” for precisely the reason that there are ten directives, and they must be taken as a whole to remain in accordance with their original purpose and intent. Eliminating four would be like removing the preamble from the Declaration of Independence or the final paragraph from the Constitution because of references to God. The deletion of one word from any of these texts would distort the true nature of the documents and alter their intent.

After reading Obama’s remarks concerning the case of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, I can’t let his comments go unanswered. His rhetoric should be a shinning, classic example for the text books on how a demagogue works so that people can spot one when they speak.

Obama said, “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

There are three things wrong (or should I say false) with this statement. First of all, it is not unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. If that were the case there would be no need for the Supreme Court. To cite just one example, the California’s Supreme Court has consistently overturned laws passed by a referendum vote of the people – such as proposition 8 – that passed by a large percentage. Yet the Democrats hailed that decision because they were against what the voters wanted. To say that it is unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress is not only historically false but is Constitutionally false as well. That is exactly the role of the Supreme Court if they think a law is unconstitutional.

Washington, DC – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped its appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this improper lawsuit. The DOJ had unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Susan Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (“PWC”) abortion clinic.

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised for filing a case with no evidence. Federal Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp stated that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their joint failure to preserve video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest level of the Obama Administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.” After this ruling the DOJ appealed on the last day possible and gave indication that President Obama ordered the appeal.

Ironically, this past December, in the midst of the case, Ms. Pine actually counseled a woman outside of PWC and convinced her not to have an abortion, thus saving the life of the child and possibly the mother as well. Her email to Liberty Counsel read, “We saved a life today.”

One of the key witnesses to the events that led up the shooting of Trayvon Martin told police that he heard Zimmerman screaming for help and saw the teenager on top of the man beating him mercilessly. He made the 911 call, then went to an upstairs window to watch what happened next. To his credit, he, and one or two others responded the the victims screams with more concern then Kitty Genovese’s Kew Gardens neighbors did when she was stabbed to death in an alley next to her apartment building in 1964.

I don’t know the man or his physical condition, but I am concerned that this thinking is far too prevalent in our world today. Many believe that seeing a situation and letting the government know about it is the solution to just about any problem. In this case, we were able to see the truth of the well known statement: when seconds count, police are only minutes away. This is not a criticism of the police, who generally do a fine job. They are not all around us all the time – nor would we want them to be. All too often they are limited to cleaning up after incidents such as this and figuring out what happened. Prevention is something they aspire to, but so often arrive after the damage is done.

It just seems to be a little a ineffective for someone to see a neighbor in trouble in front of one’s home and not go out to help. I realize we, as a society, have become averse to personal risk and danger, but if we are to return our country to the greatest we knew in the past, we not only need to take responsibility for ourselves, but need to watch out for our neighbors as well.

Montgomery, AL – Liberty Counsel filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in the Alabama Supreme Court in the case of Ankrom v. State of Alabama. The case involves the consolidation of two cases, which address the question of whether Alabama’s law against chemical endangerment of children can be applied to unborn children who are exposed to illegal drugs in utero. Courts of appeal in Alabama upheld convictions of mothers who were charged under the chemical endangerment law, when their children tested positive for illegal drugs at birth.

Liberty Counsel’s brief provides the Alabama Supreme Court with a thorough historical review of legal protection for unborn children, dating from ancient Greece to the present day. Common law in England and the United States, with support from the medical and legal professions, recognized that “[l]ife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” This understanding remained the prevailing view in the United States through the middle of the 20th Century, when a societal shift prompted a “liberalization” of criminal laws, including restrictions against abortion, culminating in the abortion cases, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), in which the Supreme Court held that unborn children are not “persons” protected by the right to life set forth in the Constitution.

Yesterday we learned that the California Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Proposition 8, violated the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause and ruled that marriage between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. I have to say that I wasn’t shocked by the ruling because the Ninth Circuit is a liberal activist court and they don’t care about the Constitution or the will of the people. The record of this court has also shown that they are one of the most overturned courts in the land.

Now the experts are saying that this ruling may go to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) who will then have the final word on how marriage is defined. Although, I heard Christian conservative commentator and radio host, Janet Parshall, say on her show yesterday, that she doesn’t think the SCOTUS will take the case Time will tell.

Personally, I don’t really care if the Supreme Court takes up the case because it doesn’t matter to me what a secular court says in regards to the definition of marriage. Since I am a devout follower of Jesus Christ and I believe and obey His word, as written in the Holy Bible, all that matters to me is that God defined marriage as one man and one woman, and Jesus affirmed that definition. I am not persuaded by the immoral redefining of marriage, and I’m not persuaded by the illogical arguments that come from those who insist that marriage has to be defined as anything but one man and one woman.

[With all the chaos on the world and national stage, it may be a good time to look at the wisdom of our third president. Much of what he said would be scandalously politically incorrect today... yet, it's truth would remain. And the truth shall set us free, but only if we take heed.]

Responsibility & Effectiveness of Government

The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the legitimate responsibility of a good government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

Livingston County, NY – Judge Robert Wiggins dealt a major setback to New York Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg in the lawsuit brought by Liberty Counsel against the same-sex marriage law (“Act”). In response to the flagrant violations of the New York state constitutional and legal procedures, Liberty Counsel filed suit in the New York Supreme Court against the Act, which was signed into law on June 24, 2011, by Gov. Cuomo. The state asked the court to dismiss the case, but yesterday afternoon, Judge Wiggins sided with Liberty Counsel on the Open Meetings complaint, ruling that the case may proceed to trial. Liberty Counsel represents New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and several other plaintiffs.

New York law requires that a bill be printed and in its final form on the desks of the legislators three days prior to a vote, unless an emergency exists. Gov. Cuomo ignored the provision and declared an emergency, stating that waiting three days would deprive same-sex couples of marriage. Judge Wiggins wrote: “Logically and clearly this cite by the Governor is disingenuous. The review of such concept altering legislation for three days after generations of existing definitions would not so damage same-sex couples as to necessitate an avoidance of rules meant to ensure full review and discussion prior to any vote.” The judge then wrote that “although the disregard for the statute seems evident, the Court feels constrained to not rule on the Governor’s certification of necessity.”

In a letter to Monsieur A. Coray, dated October 31, 1823, Thomas Jefferson wrote “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

Our third president was well aware of the problems posed by a renegade judiciary… a judiciary more concerned with precedents set by it’s own members than with legislation by representatives elected by the people. As he noted in his letter, this third branch of government was to be a helpless and harmless administrator of laws and regulations coming out of the other two branches. It just didn’t work out that way as the egos of these men and women in black robes pushed them to the point where they now sit in judgment on the other two branches as a mafia godfather ruling with an iron hand.

It’s sometimes interesting watching the Republican presidential hopefuls argue and debate as they discuss the various issues facing our country today. Yet, there is one issue no one seems to want to take on. We have seen time and time again the best laid legislative efforts slapped down by a judiciary that has placed itself as the in a position, not just of administering the law, but of judging the law and even creating new laws.

Unless the problem is resolved, it could short circuit any kind of legislative effort to restore sanity our part of the world. To make matters worse, some courts, in Massachusetts, for example, have even taken it upon themselves to order legislatures to pass laws that meet their dictatorial demands.

We have even seen the courts overrule the will of the people after a referendum on homosexual marriage in California. Just recently, they have stuck their Pinocchio like proboscis into the efforts of Arizona and Alabama to make up for the national government’s failure to live up to it’s responsibility to protect the citizens against foreign invasion.

The death of Anwar al-Awlaki has caused quite a stir in this country. He became an al Qaeda leader, helping plan attacks on Americans and encouraging those who carried them out. He became a key figure in an organization dedicated to destroying, not only our government, but our whole way of life.

Some, primarily libertarians, are scandalized that there was an operation carried out purposely targeting an American citizen. They said that because of this citizenship, al Awlaki should have been afforded the due process of our criminal justice system.

If the Muslim cleric had been shot by someone stepping out of the shadows as he entered his New York City apartment, or if he were gunned down as he enjoyed a night at the theater in our nation’s capitol, then it would really be a problem with our government just exterminating someone they determine to be an enemy of the state. It’s not that this sort of thing, assisted “suicides” and the like, have never taken place – justified or not. This case, on the other hand, is just very visibly public.

I recently saw an advertisement for a seminar on the US Constitution where the presenters took great pains to emphasize the fact that it was a non-partisan look at the document. This got me to thinking, most every such session does the same thing. Years ago, no one would have thought otherwise. What happened?

Despite what some judges would have us believe, the constitution is the same as it was a hundred years ago, or for that matter, two hundred years ago. Of course there have been amendments, but for the most part, they have clarifications. Yet there were some that changed the philosophy of parts of the document. Allowing senators to be elected by the people rather than keeping them tethered to state governments was one instance. Permitting a graduated income tax was another. Not all change is for the better.

But why, recently, do people feel the need to emphasize that a study of the constitution is a non-partisan endeavor? Could it be that one political party takes offense at the idea of people – the common folks who made this country great – want to know the rules by which the governmental games are to be played? If the people know what the limits of governmental power are, then they are in a position to holler “FOUL” when those limits have been exceeded. This would put such a crimp in the unauthorized expansion of power both parties have pursued.

Atlanta, GA – Today the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 opinion that the individual mandate in Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) exceeds the authority of Congress and is unconstitutional. The court also ruled that the remainder of the law could continue in effect. The Court ruled that Congress cannot “mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.” The Eleventh Circuit case involved 26 states. Liberty Counsel’s case, Liberty University v. Geithner, was argued on May 10, 2011, at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling on that case has not yet been issued. Read more of this article »

I thought it would be good to let a few days pass before commenting on a verdict that so many thought was astounding miscarriage of justice in the Orlando courtroom. I purposely tried to avoid the melodrama on the nightly news, the morning news and the evening news. Unfortunately, it was impossible to block the voyeuristic accounts of the tall tales coming out of this sensationalized trial.

People watched this like they watched a soap opera – loving some of the actors and hating some of the others. There was an emotional response to the tragic death of young child. As sad as this was, the idea behind a trial such as this is to deal in the facts of the case… not a thirst for revenge.

What was obvious from the reports that I could not miss was that the prosecution could not even tell the court how the poor child died, let alone when and at whose hands. What was also obvious was that the girl’s mother was what we, who have studied psychology and tend to use technical terms, would call a whack case. I am not aware of any Florida law against such a malady. Read more of this article »

Nashville, TN – The Tennessee State House of Representatives passed a resolution urging each county to permit the Ten Commandments to be posted in their respective courthouses. The resolution passed unanimously 98-0, with two abstaining from the vote. The resolution reminds Tennessee lawmakers of America’s rich history. Both citizens and their elected officials alike have respected the Ten Commandments, their profound influence on the formation of American legal thought, and their fundamental place in the history of law and government as a whole.

The resolution states that the United States Supreme Court “has even upheld Sunday closing laws, which originated in the Fourth Commandment’s exhortation to remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.” Throughout Washington D.C., there are countless depictions of the Ten Commandments that can be found as a testament to the undeniable role of the Decalogue in America’s legal tradition, including the displays adorning the Supreme Court Building, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Ronald Reagan Building, the federal courthouse, and the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives. Read more of this article »

So many of the words and warnings delivered by America’s Founding Fathers are appropriate for today. Consider this sage counsel from America’s first and greatest President, George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” I was reminded of these words when I read the following report out of the State of Indiana.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday [May 12, 2011] that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

Justice Robert Rucker and Justice Brent Dickson dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision violates the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Read more of this article »

The shootings of at least 18 people (6 killed, at least 12 wounded) in Tucson, Arizona, has predictably ignited a firestorm of anti-gun, anti-right, and anti-anything not “liberal” diatribes from the typical big government talking heads in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Anti-freedom congressmen railed for more gun control, including resurrecting Bill Clinton’s so-called Assault Weapons ban, and other laws restricting “high capacity” magazines (the assailant reportedly used a Glock 9mm in the attack).

If the newly elected Republican majority in the US House of Representatives has a political death wish for 2012, they will stupidly facilitate more gun control legislation. If there is anything the vast majority of grassroots Americans (from just about anywhere) are absolutely sick and tired of, it is gun control legislation. The vast majority of Americans firmly support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the shooting in Tucson notwithstanding. In fact, since the hastily passed Assault Weapons ban expired, a majority of Americans has been truly educated regarding the intrinsic protection that personal firearms possession affords. Thanks to notable researchers such as John Lott, most Americans understand the veracity of writer Robert Heinlein’s sagacious counsel: “An armed society is a polite society.” So true.

I just spoke last week to a packed house here in my home State of Montana (with more than 500 people in attendance who came out on a Tuesday night in sub-zero temperatures to hear me), and I would estimate that twenty percent of them (or more) were carrying their own personal side arms. I would pity the poor idiot who would have attempted to duplicate Loughner’s attack in that assemblage. Obviously, guns in the hands of the citizenry are far and away more of a deterrent to violent crime than a contributor to it. Read more of this article »

[James Renwick Manship, Sr. is the author of the 2010 “Second to None: America’s Washington”, and “A Civil Air for America: An Eagle Eye View of George Washington’s Boyhood Rules of Civility” in 2008. Formerly a Member of the Board of Visitors of Mount Vernon with the father of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, for over a dozen years Manship has been one of America’s foremost Living Historians of George Washington. This was written in response to the display of historical ignorance by Ron Chernow on the pages of the New York Times.]

Like few movements in American History, the Tea Party movement has demonstrated both impact and staying power. Staying power is shown from the Ron Paul supporters March on Washington in July 2008 to the 9-12 Rally in 2009, to a similar event in November 2009, to the ObamaCare Protest Rally in March 2010, the Tax Tyranny Day Rally at the Washington Monument on April 15th, to the Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally on 8-28, to the 9-11 Patriots March up Constitution Avenue, and the 9-12 March on the Capitol from the Washington Monument. One George Washington Living Historian was at most events and is in the NY Times photos by Drew Angerer reading a Bible passage (Psalm 37) to the Citizens assembled. GW also calls for UPROAR Unite Patriots Recover Our American Republic.

And the “Staying Power” is not confined to the City of Washington, but seen in Rallies All Across America. “Impact” is shown “Sea to Shining Sea” by the Primary Election defeats of “RINO Republicans” such as Murkowski of Alaska, Bennett of Utah, to Castle of Delaware and other Tea Party supported candidates. Democrats are shivering in fear of what General Election Day may bring. All together, millions and millions of Americans are getting up and getting out to protest both party’s Elites in Government ignoring their wishes. “No more!” Voting Citizens uproar. Read more of this article »

Many of us grew up in Sunday School and church. We have heard the great Bible stories over and over. We heard about the story of how Moses’ mother defied Pharaoh and hid her little baby boy in bulrushes. We heard the story of how Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster defending a Hebrew slave and later became the great deliverer of God’s people. We heard the story of young David going out alone against the Philistines’ greatest warrior, Goliath. We heard the story of how Saul’s servants refused to carry out the king’s order to murder the priest Ahimelech. We know well the story of Daniel who defied his government’s order to refrain from praying. The names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are very familiar to us. We heard our teachers and preachers extol their courage in defying the government’s order to bow to the image of their emperor. We remember that John the Baptist went to prison (and was eventually beheaded), not for preaching the Gospel, but for criticizing the king for his immoral behavior. We certainly recall the story of Simon Peter who bluntly told his civil magistrates, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” We know that the Apostle Paul wrote many of his epistles from inside government prisons. We certainly recall that before John penned the Revelation, he had been banished to an island-prison by his civil authorities.

I challenge Christians to objectively look at the great stories of Bible heroes (in both testaments) and observe how many times they are noted for either being martyred for defying a civil authority, or, perhaps, for being delivered from death for defying a civil authority. The stories of defiance to civil government (in one form or another) comprise a great percentage of all the stories contained in the Bible–perhaps even a majority of them. Read more of this article »

Yesterday, Judge Henry Hudson of the US District Court for the District of Virginia ruled in favor of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit claiming that Congress overstepped it’s bounds when it required individuals to purchase health insurance from a private company. This individual mandate is the lynch pin of the entire ObamaCare hustle. Without it, the entire plan begins to disintegrate.

The government’s case failed to recognize that there really are limits on the power of the national government. As with other nefarious maneuvers by this administration, there is a firm belief in the concept of divine right of the executive branch to make or alter the rules of engagement to suit their purposes.

As Mr. Cuccinelli describes the two basic aspects of case:

First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance. Read more of this article »

Invitation

If you like the copyrighted content of Political Christian and would like to repost, republish or email the material, permission is granted for any article attributed to Larry Miller provided 1) there is a link back to this site and 2) there is no subscription fee and no paid advertising.

For other circumstances and other contributors, please contact larry@politicachristian.org or follow links that may be provided.